/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8540204
>>>8540197
>>>8540191
>Are you schizophrenic or something, you seem to be copy-pasting pre-made responses to every single reply, simply waiting for the post timer to count down till you post another reply. No one even knows what the fuck you are rambling on about here.
> He posted facts that demonstrated that the major climate organizations believed in Global Cooling
> He posted facts that demonstrated that the majority of relevant papers from the time agreed on Global Cooling
> He cited several papers
> I know, I'll say he's rambling!
Your denial is extraordinary. Either it is evidence of deep psychosis, or paid shilling.

>>8530788
>It's good that you believe climatologists on something. I guess you'll believe them on this too.
>http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot

> I'll mention Sherwood and pretend he hasn't already been discussed.
Please explain how adding data from a time period where there was No Troposphere Warming (2005 - 2015) will create troposphere warming?
Go back and look here: >>8528656 and explain why wind based "measures" are better than the actual temperature measures from radiosondes.

> You have to be a Ph.D. climatologist to discuss AGW!
> Look at this cartoonist turned psychologist!
>Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

What a stupid statement. No one said that CO2 isn't in the atmosphere. However its logarithmic effect renders anymore CO2 just about meaningless. And you're making a very suspect assumption that if one wavelength shows less outgoing radiation, that radiation can't go out a different way (radiated outward at a different wavelength). Ridiculous. The kind of sloppy "inferences" they make at simpleton science.

Seriously. Show the data and give specific explanations based on logic and fact. Cook and Co. have been debunked and he's a well established liar:

JOHN COOK DEBUNKED:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

JOHN COOK LIES
>hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
>www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
>wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
>http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

>>8237826
> Let's pretend that the UN IPCC is not a political organization.
> Masses and masses of data.
Filtered through a political committee. Not impressed.

Your naivete is astonishing.
Take your climastrology elsewhere >>>/x/